"the MC in casu must be realativ cheap (for now) but also relativ abundant. Say about 100 specimens."
I take it you assume we are talking about a vintage MC that is no longer being manufactured. I am not so sure. But we may never know. Among vintage MCs, I do know that Raul has always admitted he is very fond of the Ortofon MC2000, which is why I mentioned it in parentheses above. Maxime or Tour d'Argent? |
It might be the DL-S1
Regards, |
Dear Lew, I had no idea that a scientist in America earns
such a kind of money that he can afford Maxime. What btw is
Tour d'Argent? Are you spoiled by your wealthy French friend? What about, say, Krell 100 and other Takeda versions by other names? I just negotiate one with some
Italian while wishful thinking is the primary condition for any optimism.
Regards,
i |
Years ago, Tour d'Argent was another mega-expensive restaurant in Paris. In the late 60s, a good friend of mine took his then new bride there for lunch, on their honeymoon, and spent $400, FOR LUNCH, 45 years ago! Google says it does still exist but that their chef died a few years or more ago, which resulted in their losing a Michelin star. Apparently, you can now buy a prix fixe lunch at Tour d'Argent for 65 Euros, about the cost of a broken Clearaudio Virtuoso. The marriage, by the way, lasted only about two years and one baby.
I think Fleib's guess may be a very good one, the Denon DLS1. |
Hi Nandric,
Thanks for the information:
"He is the so called 'father' of the modern logic. He designed his 'sign language' as the first step for his real aim: the fundation of mathematics."
However, in a World in which we cannot yet mathemtically explain the ongoing acceleration of our Universe's expansion, I wonder about the limits of that endeavour. Was it Carl Sagan who argued that:
"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring?"
It is in this sense that I query more 'proscriptive' (in distinction from 'prescriptive') approaches.
As always... |
Dear Dgob, I understand your admiration for Kant because of
my own for Frege. Without such a motivation I would never
spent so much time on 'phylosophy'. As you know Frege started with Kant's (and Hume's)question about the 'nature' of mathematics. BTW whatever the universe 'is' this will be described with mathematical means.
Regards, |
Regards, all: Think I'll fire up the Ferrari F-10 & meet the pit crew at the country store three miles down the road for a sandwich. Smoked turkey, lettuce, tomato, mayo & mustard on dark bread sounds good.
Taste is the ability to make discriminating judgments about aesthetic and artistic matters.
As remembered from long ago, Immanuel Kant (Kritik der Urteilskraftwork), maintained that taste is autonomous and appreciation of art an extension of subjective experience, reflecting personal interpretation. Veblen (the conspicuous consumption dude) cynically argued instead that honor is attached to possession. Standards of taste do not reflect autonomous and eternal standards of beauty, but rather a sense of costliness passing under the pretense of beauty.
Critics of mass culture argue that contemporary standards of taste are evidence of a degradation in individual autonomy and independent judgement, this is in contradiction of the current values assigned to egalitarianism and inevitably the homogenization of value is perceived as detrimental. It should be explicit that A'goners are rarely influenced by the "lowest common denominator".
Among those with an interest in music, some are characterized by an openness to a variety of musical expression which may include unamplified or acoustical instrumentation but are not restricted to it. An omnivore/univore pattern might be observed, creating a division which is strongly supported by adherents of either position, distinguishing omnivores or those who prefer a wide range of musical experience from univores, whose preferences are more restricted, some would say refined. Either type of listener may have an audio system.
W ether this leads to subjective relativism is a source of delightful, spirited and sometimes heated discussion. If there are no objective criteria of evaluation, the equalization of all hierarchies is the consequence. Wether this is seen as a failure to reproduce technically accurate aspects of audible response or whether an openness to a variety of experience as desired by the particular expectations (or peculiar, if you will) of the individual is the cause. To paint with an admittedly overly broad brush, this distinction may serve to define the difference between the sociological or technical perspectives of "high class" and "high end".
If it is accepted that taste is developed and sustained through exposure to a variety of musical forms or presentations, then an informed preference is an integral element in the selection of both composition and supporting gear, or mode and means. Just as there are those who have argued an objective evaluation can define value, others seem to suggest an exclusivist mentality results in the restriction of variety and and consequently a rigidly defined hierarchy of the acceptable. Some would find such a narrow definition of rewarding experience unnecessarily restrictive. Others maintain that if what is heard does not reflect, for instance, the intent of the composer then the result is an artificial construct, a facsimile and of diminished value. They may point out that critics of functionalists such as Emile Durkheim or Robert Merton will recognize this as teleological, that is, reversing the usual order of cause and effect by explaining things in terms of what happens afterward, not what went before.
Cars, the teleoligical and the visceral experience.
The BMW M5 is so well soundproofed, "Car and Driver" reports BMW introduces an exterior recording of the motor played through the stereo. Lexus has contracted with Yamaha's Advanced Sound Technologies Division in treating the V-10 engine in the awe inspiring LFA as a generator and developed componentry to direct the V-10s shriek to the cockpit. The Mustang GT is equipped with a resonator attached to the firewall, the Boss 302 (wow!) adds a second pair of exhausts tucked behind the rocker panels, open these up, punch it and grin while watching startled pedestrians run for cover. Returning to Europe, VW's GTI utilizes an audio file ("Soundaktor") stored in the car's computer. Played during advanced throttle application, broadcasting ALL under-the-hood sound through a dedicated speaker located near the throttle body. Can you hear me now?
Even Porche, the "nuts & bolts" driving machine, fits a Sound Symposer to the 991 GT3, 911, Panamera GTS. This consists of a tube, valve and diaphragm, when the "sport" function is selected the sounds radiating from the intake plenum are amplified. The stated objective is to ensure driver awareness of the current state of performance.
Closer to home, my new grocery-getter, a V-6 Honda Crosstour is equipped with a noise canceling application in the sound system, tuned to eliminate all cabin noises except those frequencies generated during full-throttle acceleration. This I attribute to a purely psychoacoustic intent. Cars with an abundance of decals always go faster. Don't they?
Carts (remember them?).
Moved the hybrid XLZ-4500S to the EPA-500H mid-low eff. mass arm, bass is more evident than with the 14gm eff. mass 250 wand which is a very neutral device, especially with the Yama. HS-1As ebony headshell. Personal thoughts are that the elimination of cart/arm/headshell self-resonances may not always be desirable, wether 'tis coloration or evidence of tonearm/cart matching is an open question. Virtual or visceral, car or cart---for the enthusiast, the operator's apprehension of performance just may be the most important component. The purist would, of course, have different criteria. The ongoing debate is at what point do high class (musical at the expense of accuracy?) and high end (accurate to the point of being overly analytical?) merge.
So, I've listened to the XLZ and in transient speed, imaging and absence of grain it compares well with the AT20SS and TK9/ATN25 stylus. Bass is controlled and hfs clearly defined. Mids are clean and avoid confusion during congested passages. There is an impression of distance not heard with the two others mentioned, this is most likely the fault of the entry level SUT which was ignored for decades but has now become a problem. Maybe not the equivalent of the F-10 in the realm of carts but the Pickering offers a tantalizing glimpse of exquisite performance. Problem is, it's being run on an 87 octane SUT.
I'm going to have to think about this one, and wether to try a D1800S (stereohedron), D2000Q (quadrahedron) or D2400Q stylus for the surprisingly good XV-15.
Anyone with experience with the 881S?
Peace, |
Hi Timeltel - Tom,
Any essay that touches on taste, perception as a psychological phenomenon, the BMW automobile marque, and the 881s phono cartridge is going to get a rise out of me, every time ;)
Since January I've logged about 50 clock hours on my 881s. For the first 30 hours or so I had it mounted on an ADC MG1 headshell with silver SME leads. I took a break from it for a few weeks and when returning, moved it to an AT MG10 headshell with AT 6101 leads. I prefer the latter setup on my Micro Seiki MA-505S arm, by far--big open sound, natural sounding timbres, dynamically very fast, and most importantly to me--excellent reproduction of musical nuance and interplay between musicians.
I think it is at least as detailed and powerful sounding as my Acutex LPM 315 III while perhaps being more suited to my tastes. I'm very glad I found one along with a couple of nos styli.
Interesting that you mention cartridge/tonearm resonances as well...this cartridge is the most sensitive one I own in that tapping the tonearm (when locked in the arm rest, of course) results in surprising amplified thuds coming through the speakers. And the diversity of musical performance generated via choice of headshell and leads is greater than with any other cartridge I've owned. In spite of all this "touchy-ness," somehow the music produced when playing LPs is wonderful...
Cheers!
Jim |
My Gosh. Who else can put together: testes, esthetics,
Urteilskraft( Kant), Veblens 'third class' ( the leisuere kind), the school of Frankfurt (Frankfurter Schule), Merton, fancy cars and Stanton carts?
Long ago, in my Marxian time, I have read those 'Frankfurter '. Only Adorno was interested in music and wrote even some books about Wagner or Mahler. All of them inherited from Kant and Hegel this strange inclination to write unbelievable long sentences. By each of them one lost the Ariadne tread and needed to read every sentence at least 3 times before give up. They all have had a huge list with demands which 'the society' needed to fulfil in order to get the decent one. Their job was obviously to formulate the demands and order their fulfilment by 'the society'.
As a good Dutchman I own and USE a bike. Good for the helth and certainly for the wallet. So, alas, I am not able to provide any info about whatever car.
But I own the Stanton 881 S. Even two, the other as spare. I was so impressed that I also bought the mk II version and discovered that some later versions in no way imply any improvement. On the contrary . I am very reluctant to describe cart 'character' because of all those knowledgable persons regarding the 'subjec matter'in our forum . What I can say is that I like this cart very much, think that this cart is very 'musical' as well that 'ít' is as good as my Virtuoso(s), AT 180 and Signet 9CL.
Regards, |
Regards, Dean_Man, Nandric: Thanks for your input regarding the 881S. In the past, the Stanton/Pickering carts were viewed as broadcast DJ or homeowner quality, the mistake was mine. Lew's positive hints relating to the 981 inspired investigation.
Jim, the AT leads are a favorite. Also of twisted copper and relatively thick, Hitachi SSL-101 (search ebay) leads are comparable. LCOFC rather than PCOCC and slightly more flexible, and also slightly warmer sounding than the ATs. I've also an MG10 headshell, suspect there's an 881S in my future, thanks again for your comments and set-up tips. BTW, have briefly auditioned the Stant. 500EE-11/D5100 stylus, a two coil/solid core design. A straight-forward performer, need to listen to it more before reaching any understanding of the character of this "primitive" transducer, surely there's good reason for it's fifty year production run.
Nikola, from what I can gather, any of the carts with the "11" designation have samarium cobalt magnets. As appropriate for the decade of production, quaintly referred to as "Space Age" magnets. A lowering of moving cantilever mass was the intended target for MM carts. In contrast to some of the more verbose posts (eh-hem?) found here, the economy of words in your approval of the 881 is appreciated.
Peace, |
As I related to Raul some time ago, my curiosity about MM/MI was raised long before his initial post here. I had noted different references to well-known mastering engineers using them, rather than MCs, in their work. Now there might be several reasons for this, such as user-replaceable styli (time is money), but I could not imagine them taking any chance on compromising their work will less than accurate cartridges.
Unfortunately I didn't act then by buying up several candidate MM/MI cartridges while they were still available and inexpensive, such as a Technics 100 Mk 4!!! :^(
As for current discussions on Stanton cartridges, I know Doug Sax used them and that seems a pretty strong endorsement to me. |
Tom, I am just impressed that you did not screw around and bought the F10. Not an Enzo. Not an FXX for the gold-chain set. A bona fide Ferrari race car that would make Schumacher happy. When you are not swapping discontinued vintage styli among discontinued vintage cartridges for which the styli were never intended, you are one cool guy.
I live in the DC area, and my dear now departed mother-in-law lived in Southern Connecticut, about 330 miles from my front door, but miserable miles on rte 95 thru NYC, etc. When we had to drive up for an obligatory visit, I used to fantasize about having an F18 jet fighter to get me there in, oh, about 15 minutes, assuming my street is long enough to serve as runway. |
Hi, Lew: Learned a little about cantilever materials, resonance, stylus profiles & loading from swapping styli, would like to know more. Must confess, even tried a few "square pegs in round holes". Fortunately, curiosity didn't kill the cart.
F-10 or F-18, wouldn't either be a memorable experience?
Peace, |
I would settle for an F40, actually. It is to drool for, when you see one in person. |
I'll take the black 2002 360 Modena that plays an important role and provides soundtrack "music" in Sofia Cuppola's film "Somewhere." Certainly one of Ferrari's most beautiful recent models. |
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a 365(or 512) Berlinetta Boxer! |
360 Modena or Berlinetta Boxer can be had for less than $100K, these days. Cheaper than a Continuum Caliburn.
I love the Modena, too, but I fear the cost of service and maintenance. |
Yes I recollect an article in a motoring magasine many years ago - the reviewer walked in on a well known specialist mechanic sitting on the floor of his workshop with a Ferrari motor in a thousand pieces around him.
The journalist asked him what was wrong with it, the mechanic replied: "it has done 10,000k and is therefore completely f*****, and needs a rebuild"
Ouch. |
I believe the best Ferrari bargain is the Testarossa. Under 30K mileage with the 30K maintenance schedule already performed. |
Raul actually never stated that MM carts are better then
MC carts. What he deed say can be put this way: 'some MM
carts are better then (some)MC carts'. For the quantifier
'some' in this statement to be true the needed 'condition'
is that at least one MM cart is better then ,say,the Ortofon MC 30. I want bother you with the quantifier 'all' which is implicated in 'MM carts are better then MC carts'. Our interest and hunt for the MM carts does also not imply that we lost all interest in the MC carts. The problem is, anyway for the most of us, the price difference. Discovering 'top'carts for, say, $500 causes the uneasy feeling about (MC) carts costing + 2 K. I discovered an 'easy way out' for at least some carts.
Syntax and Thuchan give me the advice to look for the Miyabi Standard. Fleib advised the Monster Genesis 1000.
I discovered that Takeda made 'the same' cart for: Krell (KC 100), Cello, M. Levinson MLC 1 and Red Rose. Those can be get for +/- $ 600 . Axel can provide pressure fitted line contact stylus in a tapered aluminum cantilever in case of need. This method is to prefer above the 'glued' new stylus in the existing cantilever. I got the 'Monster'
for $120 with the boron cantilever but without stylus. Axel
will need to glue some 'exotic stylus' in there. There is alas no way to pressure fit any stylus in any 'exotic' cantilever. In 'there' the styli can only be glued. I got the
Krell KC 100 in good condition for 500 Euro. For 160 Euro
this one can be 'upgraded' by Axel as described in the future.
I feel smart. What do you think ?
Sorry. I forget to mention the Sony XL 88 MC (NOS) which I got for 400 Euro. This one I 'deduced' myself from the FR-7 thread.
Regards, |
Dear nandric: Now that you mentioned, I bought the Sony XL44L that now is with Axel to an up-date. This cartridge was still made by Sony and its design ( motor ) is similar to the 88 that's a top performer, at least that's what I read on the 88.
What were your expweriences with your Sony XL88 D?
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Raul, I am very glad to hear your approval reg. the
Sony XL 88. The coincidence was that Thuchan was just
listening to his XL 88 and regards this cart as equal to
his FR-7f. I consulted Thuchan before I bought the Sony.
According to Thuchan the 88D was the most expensive cart
in Germany in the 80is(6000 DM). For the record the suffix
'D' means : cantilever and stylus made out of one piece of
diamond. Those are very rare and also very 'vulnerable'.
I noticed this cart in the thread about the FR-7 but had
no idea that those are actully two different carts (qua
cantilever/stylus). I am sorry to have caused some confusion but my is the XL 88. I am waiting for delivery of both because I bought from the same person also the Krell KC 100. So,alas, no report about either yet.
Regards, |
Dear Nandric: The 88D was along the AT 1000 ( that shares same diamond cantilever/stylus. ) onew of the more expensive cartridges in Japan too, 150K yens in 1980.
The Sony XL44L came with elipthical stylus and I ask Axel to go with nude line contact. Btw, this 44 has lower output than the 88D: 0.3mv against 0.4mv on the 88D.
I just received up dated by Axel a Clearaudio Virtuoso Black Wood, the Goldring G800 and the Ortofon MC 3000MK2. I can't test it because my system still down but I think that in the next two weeks everything comes out again. I can't hear either my Dyna Karat Nova 13D and other " new " cartridges I have up dated.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Raul, I can offer you some strange comfort. I am also not able to test my new carts because the Italian seller from whom I bought: Sony XL 88, Krell KC 100 and Monster
Genesis 1000 lives within 30 km. distance from where the
epicentre of the lateast earthquake occured. He is , God thank, ok as well as his home. I was of course reluctant to ask when my carts will be posted. However waiting for
something pleasurable to happen is a different proposition than waiting for, say, Euro crisis to be solved.
Regards, |
Raul, I will like to know what Axel did to the Goldring G800. According to Dominic, he perform a unique re-tipping to the cartridge that nobody else does.
Also will like to know your take on the Sony cartridge. Presently, I have both the XL-44 and XL-44B with Dominic for some work to be done to them. Still undecided which direction to go.
Ben. |
Dear Ben, According to my mom I am the smartest and the best looking 'boy' on earth. Aka 'unique'. Does Dominic paint them? The 'unique' re-tipping work consist in inserting the cantilever/stylus combo provided as such by the supplier in the cart tube. For the MC carts however one can claim to use some 'magic glue'.
Regards, |
Got to control myself.
Stanton eBay #380433151397 |
A discussion in the 'Glanz' thread on integrated headshell design more fittingly belongs here! Raul set forth his arguments against the concept:- Dear Henry: +++++ " It would seem impertinent to assume that the manufacturers did not conduct a thorough testing procedure to determine the best possible results in their integrated designs... " +++++
I'm not assumming that. Now, even that suppose I was " impertinent " , seems to me extremely stupid ( for say the least ) assume that 30-40 years old cartridge designs manufactured with the way of thinking of 40 years ago can be today justified as the best way to go against its stand alone counterpart.
All the integrated headshell designs came from the same times, was a trend with the those days way of thinking that a dedicated headshell was the better for a cartridge can shows at its best.
In those old times the subject of cartridge headshell comparisons for a better performance was not only the trend but almost no body cares about. Today we learn and cares about: that's why ( according to Nandric ) you own 30+ headshells and 100+ by my self.
Try to find out the P100CMK4 stand alone cartridge and compare it against your integrated headshel counterpart you own.
Now, I have no single doubt ( because I'm not stupid ) that the FR7 in stand alone fashion outperforms easily the integrated model.
Today we know that the same cartridge in the same tonearm mounted in two diffrent headshells performs different. If not why every one of us are looking for " new " headshells?
Today we have several options on headshells, several options on mount screws, several options on headshell wires, several options on headshell wire connectors, several options to align the cartridge. Even some of us like to tame the cartridge " color " through the mount screws using different pressure on the screws/cartridge mounting to the headshell.
Many of these " severals" was almost unexistent on those old times, example: almost all the japanese tonearms use the Stevenson cartridge/tonearm alignment, no options and no one cares about. One of the reasons on those integrated cartridge headshell designs were because were almost " plug and play " and suppose more user friendly.
Today we have a lot lot better cartridge wires against those 30-40+ years old internal wires that came with those old integrated headshells..
All we know the critical and paramount difference that those headshell wires can and makes on favor to quality performance level, this " sole " parameter makes huge differences between any integrated headshell cartridge design and its stand alone counterpart.
Glanz is no diffrent to Astatic, Astatic bought the patent of that design but were clever than Glanz and even that Astatic cartridges came along a headshell this is not integrated one but an univeral headshell where you decide if mount the Astatic there or in other headshell and of course with headshell wires of your choice,
Anyway, my point is that any stand alone vintage cartridge design beats its integrated headshell counterpart.
The last integarted cartridge design I remember was the Nightingale ( I think that was the model. ) for the Graham tonearm and has no success on the market, today IMHO that kind of cartridge designs is a huge mistake/error for any cartridge manufacturer.
Audio and most important the understanding on the " fine tunning " audio parameters today are far away on the way of thinkinh of 40+ years ago. Everything grows up.
Vintage cartridge designs are really great ones with very very good " motors " but as you and many of us already experienced every single vintage cartridge that we send to any cartridge fixing source for an up date outperforms the sound quality level of that cartridge in stock condition.
For me there is no way to support the most critical subject in the cartridge quality level performance: cartridge/headshell/headshell wires saying that the 30-40+ years old cartridge with integarted headshell are better that its stand alone versions with todays " technology ".
Today IMHO that a cartridge manufacturer said 30-40 years ago that's its integrated design is better means almost nothing.
Other subject with those integarted designs are to know : how the designers voiced those cartridges, which tonearm, phono stage, speakers, electronics, ewtc, etc? because as you pointed out the " manufacturers made and had testing procedure ".
The only integrated headshell design that IMHO was a wise design was and is the Dynavector Karat Nova 13/17D that came with a dedicated headshell but you can use it in stand alone fashion too!!!
Things change over time, after those monolitic cartridge designs the trend for the top cartridge models was that with the cartridges came a dedicated headshell ( separate ): this is the case of the AT100, AT700, Ortofon MC2000/3000/5000 and many more.
Monolitic cartridge designs today are a wrong cartridge design and if you support it then why you own not only several headshells but several removable headshel tonearm designs?
I respect you opinion but disagree with.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. As I mulled over my response....I awoke this morning to find that both Lewm and Nandric (especially Lew).....had presented similar arguments to the ones I intended to present today. When I first became interested in audio in 1978.......the days of the 'J' or 'S' shaped tonearms with detacheable headshells were already over with straight-arm designs with fixed headshells being regarded as 'de rigeur' in the high-end community. That is the primary reason...I believe...that manufacturers ceased their development of integrated headshells. That...and of course the costs involved. Don't forget that in 1980-81 with the introduction of CD......it seemed that vinyl was a doomed technology...so the persistence of Fidelity Research and Ortofon with their SPUs was indicative of a strongly held conviction. The tide had also turned against MM/MI cartridges in favour of MCs so the development of 'high-end' MM cartridges dwindled. I also respect your opinion Raul.....but for you to state that 'modern' development of materials and knowledge has improved the art of cartridge design is....as Lew points out.....contrary to everything this thread of yours has propagated over the last 5 or 6 years? I have found very few modern cartridges to be the equal of the great MMs of the 70s and 80s. And in terms of LOMCs.......the FR-7f I owned with its conical stylus, was, IMHO, better than the dozen top of the line modern LOMCs I have had in my system except perhaps for the ZYX UNIverse? Re-tipped by Axel with a nude Line Contact diamond pressure-fitted into an aluminium cantilever........my FR-7f now leaves every other LOMC I have heard far behind. On this subject Raul.......You and I agree to differ :-) Regards Henry |
Dear Halcro: ++++ " Dear nandric: I repeat, those integrated headshell designs were a fashion on those old times and in many ways more marketing that a scientific achievment.
Almost all the cartridge manufacturers of this kind of designs were tonearm manufacturers too: Technics, Audio Technica, FR/Ikeda, Yamaha, Sony, ADC, etc, etc.
Wonder where those integrated headshell designs performs the " better "?, you are right!: with its tonearm counterpart designed by the same cartridge manufacturer.
I owned several of those integrated headshell designs on those old times and I remember the USA distributors/sellers how they push to the integrated designs against its stand alone brothers, curios was that normally first appears the stand alone one and suddenly after that the integrated headshell design arrived and some " stupid " people like me goes through the integrated designs too!. At the end we owned two same model cartridges that means profits$$$ for the manufacturers: who cares?????
Japanese manufacturers does not cares about those " high end " tonearms with non removable headshell designs ( the Lewm argument. ) because almost all of them have on sale their own tonearm designs that were the " best " tonearm match. The integrated cartridge designs were on sale mainly in Asia, then Europe and in lesser way in America.
Marketing always has an important " weight " on audio item designs and in many cases with no clear audio quality parameters/factors as its foundation.
Btw, 80% of the sales on Ortofon/EMT integrated cartridge designs goes to Asia where today still exist a " cult " for that kind of sound.
I don't see that you and the other " proponents " of integrated headshell designs have wide experiences with this kind of cartridges.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
+++++++++++++++++
in the other side I don't posted nothing about"
++++++ but for you to state that 'modern' development of materials and knowledge has improved the art of cartridge design " +++++++
by the contarry I supported that the vintage designs are have great motors that improve with a today " touch ".
One example on this was with my long nose Acutex where I own an original ones with only a " touched " VDH suspension , same model with a cantilever/stylus/suspension up grade and one in stock fashion. Well the best performer is the one with the up dated cantilever/stylus against the stock one and the suspension refreshed one. What I support came from my experiences and certaibnly I'm not contradictory on what I was and am supported in this thread.
Now, as you and other people like me we are learning all the time and with this " learning " our each one way of thinking could change a bit. I'm hard sticky on the vintage cartridge motor designs.
+++++ " the days of the 'J' or 'S' shaped tonearms with detacheable headshells were already over with straight-arm designs with fixed headshells being regarded as 'de rigeur' in the high-end community..+++++++++++++""""
where in the high end community?, certainly not Asia. Even today Dynavector and Ikeda still build removable headshel tonearm designs and the best Japanese tonearms are/were on this kind of designs. Btw, japanese people are not greatly influenced on what happen in other/different high end communities.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Henry, We all respect Rául's opinions the problem is/are his 'foundations'. Some of them at least are contradictory. My prease for Lew's contribution in casu
is his irreproachable logic and beautiful prose.
Regards, |
Hi Folks,
working my way through some late 60's Walton articles on measuring pickups, I came across the formula for calculating Effective Tip Mass.
This requires two important values: 1) Primary resonance frequency and 2) Vinyl compliance constant.
The first can be measured, but the 2nd needs to be known to calculate the ETM.
In a stroke of "doh" the other day, I realised I could calculate the vinyl constant from the published ETM figures of various Ortofon cartridges I own (Ortofon being one of the very few that still advertise ETM specs) - and measuring the primary resonance for those cartridges.
Effectively ETM is a mathematical restating of the resonant frequency - Formula is as follows:
ETM =((1/(ResF*2*3.14159)^2)/[1.16 x 10^(-10)])
I previously stated my belief that resonant frequency is critical to top performance, and this relationship appears to confirm it.
It also allows us to understand and compare a range of cartridges and their specifications in a different manner.
The Dynavector Karat 17's have res f at circa 70kHz which calculates to an ETM of circa 0.05g (around the same as the EPC100....)
The "lower end" Karat 23's have res f at circa 60kHz making ETM circa 0.1g.
Other interesting observations based on this:
SAS styli seem to be just under 0.3g
I need to measure the primary resonance of more of my stable of cartridges.... I have a strong feeling that this is a key indicator of performance.
Previously my focus was on higher res f to ensure minimised amplitude and phase impact on the audio frequencies - now I am realising that the res f is also a consequence of tip inertia, and therefore the high res f will also be an indicator of high mechanical dynamic ability. (it was sitting there all the time in front of my face... but it is different to know something and to "realise" it!)
Note: - this is of course completely divorced from whether a cartridge is MM or MC (or anything else!)
If in fact the greatest indicator (or at least one of the greates) of performance is res f / ETM then a large part of the entire MM vs MC discussion is a whopping Red Herring.
bye for now
David |
Dear nandric/Lewm/Henry: All of you posted that I'm contradictory, well I appreciate that you were more specifics because maybe I did not understand yet in specific in which subjects I'm trhough your posts.
Now, if in true I'm contradictory I can and have to accept it after I can analize what moves me what brings me to been contradictory.
I'm willing as always to accept critics about my " foundations " except when one person post that I'm lying.
The integrated headshell cartridge design subject is controversial as many other audio subjects and my take there is only that the same vintage cartridge model in stand alone fashion outperforms its integrated counterpart.
In my " take " the only possibility I " see " that the integrated one could beats the stand alone " sister " is to change the integrated internal wires and after that find out the tonearm ideal match and even here the challenge could be strong because the stand alone one will be on similar whole set up conditions.
I had this kind of experiences in the old times, especialy with AT cartridges. Unfortunately in those times I owned a different system and more important I did not care about tonearm/headshell/cartridge matching.
One of the cartridges I owned were the AT24 and its integrated counterpart AT25 and I can't remember big differences on it because the AT24 was mated with AT headshell and AT wires.
The problem today is that in those vintage integrated designs we can't change nothing on the internal construction when its counterpart ( stand alone ) be mated with firt rate headshell wires and tested with several headshells till we find out the best match, the stand alone vintage cartridge design has many advantages over its integrated " sister ".
I would like to know if there are some contradictions here or why I'm wrong.
Yes, I have a strong foundation against integrated designs, I don't like its monolitic status: IMHO we all need and in specific the cartridge needs and ask for " alternatives " to shows at its best alternatives to be perfectly matched.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
On the topic of headshells ...
My observation and measurement of various cartridges on the JVC S-arm clearly shows up a resonance around 250Hz (varying a bit depending on headshell/cartridge) which appears to be related to the flex between arm tube and headshell.
This is of course to be expected!
The effect manifests in 2 ways: 1) a small but sharp peak in amplitude at the resonant frequency, and 2) a reduction in seperation and tracking ability at that same frequency
On the Revox - this resonance simply does not exist (not surprising as there is no headshell joint to flex!)
I currently do not own a twin pin headshell - which I would like to try out to see whether the firmer connection has an impact on the resonant peak and the tracking/seperation at that same point.
Personally I think that the integrated cartridges have some great advantages.
The ADC and Ortofon integrateds (HiFi versions not DJ) achieved substantially lower mass than can be achieved with a standard headshell (even if using a 6g headshell) - these were high compliance designs, and the very low mass integrated resulted in a substantially lowered effective arm mass - which allowed these cartridges to perform much better in typical arms of that type.
I believe the TOTL Stanton integrateds were also very well regarded although I know little about them.
I do have an AT24/25 but have yet to attempt the comparison... so far I have run this as a 1/2" mount setup.
Ultimately the integrated should IMO be considered as simply another headshell alternative - there is the potential for advantages generated by the design of the two together - but those related to vibration control/damping are so very dependent on other variables (such as the arm it is attached to) - that it is most likely extremely difficult to reliably determine an advantage one way or the other in this area.
Still a high quality integrated eliminates a couple of connection points, optimises effective mass, and often looks pretty cool at the same time.
I have nothing against them, and very much like the Ortofon, and ADC integrateds. (Jury still out on the AT)
bye for now
David |
Regards, Dlaloum: Would this description take into consideration the different resonant characteristics, f. instance, a brass rod and a wooden dowel of equal mass (or equal dimension) would exhibit differing properties?
As resonances may be of a constructive or destructive nature, your post might be read as confirmation of one of the original tenants of this thread, that of the importance of matching cart/headshell/arm/loading (no comment on cables) and their impact on resonance, be it of the boundary, line, or self-resonance of stylus, cart, TA, plinth, headshell, acoustical & (it sometimes seems) ad infinitum? Why would one be surprised that a "monolithic" design would perform best on the TA it was designed to be supported by?
From another perspective this may be, for those who enjoy the different presentations of a variety of carts, a convincing argument for utilizing an arm offering changeability of headshells of differing mass or material.
Recently found a NOS stylus for Empire 4000D-111, then a stylusless cart for which tracking indicates delivery today. Pickering XV-15/D750 is singing very nicely on an ADC 6.5gm mag. headshell, with the flimsy mounting ears on the cart one would anticipate a degree of self-resonance returned to the stylus. The Empire has the same arrangement, hope it "resonates" with this listener as well as does the Pickering.
Heretical, ain't it?
Peace, |
Dear Raul, You are using the expression 'foundation' in the sense of knowledge and facts. Ie those 'without foundation' in your parlance lack some knowledge or facts
which are ,according to you, needed as the 'ground' for
their statements. Well every science has its own 'foundations' which are teached to the first year students as 'introduction to..'. Then no reasoning is possible without some premisse (presupposition) which may be implicite (assumed as known) or made explicite. The logic is about 'deduction' from those premisses. The precondition is: if the premisse is true then the deduced statements MUST also be true. But if the premiss is not true no logic can help. Now all those 'premisses' can be called 'foundation' because our reasoning is based or grounded on them. Even such a simple statement as 'it rains
today' presuppose some basics about the weather.
What is then your contradiction? You first dismissed the integrated carts in general then Ortofon and EMT in particular. The last mentioned with a very strange argument: the Japanese peculiarity. Com' on. But you also stated to be, say, very impressed by (at least) FR-7.And now you are adding up. You are describing preconditions which need to satisfied in order to get an integrated cart able to beat the stand alone kind. Well you can't have it both ways.
BTW I have no idea why you count me in the camp of the advocate of integrated carts? I am on your side in this regard I but for the reason I already mentioned: they are impractical to me. I stated nothing about the performance comparison.
Regards, |
Dear Audiopulse: My G800 was up dated with nude line contact on aluminum cantilever. I know that Dominic use the Ruby cantilever , when Axel received my Goldring I was tempted to order the ruby/saphyre cantilever but I decided to check before with the aluminum one and hear it to evaluate its quality performance level and from here decide to go or not for the ruby/saphyre one.
I ask Axel to up date the XL44L in the same way than the G800.
After test both carrtridges I will report here. To decide to go to a " better " up grade I want to know first if the carrtridge motor deserve it.
I have high expectations on that can happen because both cartridges are very well regarded.
Orinaly I was decided to send the G800 to Dominic but due that I never heard the Goldring I prefered to " wait " and see how good in reality is the cartridge motor.
Now, if the Sony is as good as some persons experienced then I will go latter with the berylium/Gyger2 up date.
Btw, now I'm trying to decide if I go with this top up date for my Astatic MF-300due that the 200 is IMHO an stellar performer: I really like the Astatic motor.
I can't help you about what I experienced with the G800 or the Sony because my system is still down.
I bought my G800 trusting on Dominic opinion so I'm waiting that even with the aluminum cantilever the cartridge can performs very good. I can't imagine why the G800 could not perform good with aluminum cantilever, we will see.
Regard and enjoy the music,
R. |
I have a Grace F8e and a F8L. I also have a NOS Grace F9e I have not used yet because I have read the Grace F8 and F9 were very similar, and I was thinking of selling the F9e
What are your opinions and experience with the Grace F 8 compared with the F 9? |
Integrated headshells - storm in a teacup.
Advantages - eliminates one mechanical connection if using a detachable headshell tonearm.
Disadvantages - can only align correctly if you are using the intended matching tonearm and alignment preferences. The integrated headshell will require a tonearm of very specific effective length, pivot to stylus distance and offset angle ( built into the J or S shape ) in order to be able to align it.
Example - Dynavector tonearms - if we assume for arguments sake that this arm is optimised for Stevenson, then for an integrated cartridge to work on this arm the stylus tip to arm distance must be precise enough to achieve the correct pivot to stylus distance and it can only be aligned to Stevenson.
To me the disadvantages are too large. As an Ikeda MC owner that has the choice of both integrated and non integrated I would choose the non integrated every time to give more tonearm and alignment options.
Raul - the issue is that you make sweeping generalisations - you imply that all integrated cartridges inferior to non integrated versions which is simply not correct. |
Hi Timeltel,
I am not clear as to whether you are responding to my posting with regards to measuring ETM via primary resonance, or my second recent posting with regards to headshells and vibration...
Assuming it is the former:
The physics behind using the primary resonance to measure ETM are grounded in a couple of theories which may be problematic.
The most obvious of these is the vinyl indentation theory. - so the people that put together this measuring method, assumed vinyl indentation and then proceeded to measure (something) and derived the ETM formula from there.
There is also the competing theory that in fact the primary resonance is generated by cantilever flex, and the there is no vinyl indentation as the groove to needle relative speed is so high that there is insufficient time for the vinyl to indent. (with an interesting corollary that a line contact, makes contact only at a point and not on the entire line...)
Either way, the ETM calculation appears to be valid for all the Ortofon cartridges that I own, and matches the specifications published by Ortofon for those cartridges.
It also appears to work equally well for aluminium, and Boron cantilevers.
Due to the fact that the generation of the resonance involves physical parameters such as material density, mass, and structurally associated parameters such as the speed of sound in the material - specifically in the direction of the length of the cantilever (some materials like wood, have differing speed of sound in differing directions - along or against the grain).
Using the resonance as the measurement value quite simply wraps all these parameters into one measurement...
One could ask whether the ETM specification does indeed reflect actual tip mass - the answer is most likely it does not! - But it is a close relative, and although the nomenclature is flawed, its meaning in terms of impact on cartridge performance is quite clear.
Assuming the latter (my posting with regards to resonance related to flex at headshell joint):
I don't think material of the headshell and arm would have great direct influence on the resonance - as this is an outcome of the headshell mass, interacting via the rigidity (or lack thereof) of the connection point.
But the resonance may be partly damped by differing materials in the arm/headshell/cartridge.
However given the impact on tracking and seperation, I am not sure that differing materials would have a substantive impact - I think to impact on this resonance would require some improvement of the rigidity of the Join - hence my interest in twin pin headshells.
bye for now
David |
Acman, This is by nature second-hand information, but nowhere have I ever read that F8 and F9 are similar, with respect to performance. Can you quote your source on that? If I owned both, I would listen to each and make my decision based on my own audition. IMO, you will not appreciably devalue your F9e by using it for a brief period. It is my further guess that you will then want to sell your F8 instead. |
And of course the most rigid joint, between headshell and tonearm, is that where none exists, ceteris paribus. |
Hi Dover,
for sure, but some of us want to have our cake and eat it too...
(and that wee little resonance can't be such a big deal can it ?!) |
Hello Lewm, The thought that Grace F9 and F8 cartridges were similar came from other peoples general observations on other forums. They would say something like" Why pay for a F9 when the F8 can be had cheap and is just as good".
I will go ahead and compare the two. I suspect you are correct in which I will be getting rid of. I am trying to thin out my crowded cartridge situation. It's like getting rid of a part of the family.
Thanks! |
Regards, Dlaloum: Apologies for yesterdays hurried post, the reference was, as you surmised, measuring tip mass through resonance without taking into consideration material used in cantilever construction. Your posts are always informed and substantiated. The reply was intended as comment, not criticism. Please don't think it's presumed you're unaware of resonance qualities of differing materials. Mea culpa.
Your post did open the door to a different matter, I should have addressed the forum rather than "Dlaloum". Allow me the opportunity to remove my foot from my mouth and instead step into that opened door. :)
Regards, all: In the past, a cartridge exhibiting any discernible degree of microphonics was personally disregarded. Detail retrieval and transient behavior has been a focus, these others have been viewed as colored or euphoric but just why have so many of these been considered among the best of the breed? Those I have with stamped metal mounts, plastic or clip mounts such as the Empire 1000 Z/EX. Pickering XLZ/4500S, XV-15/D750, Phase 4 (interesting 4 coil design), Stant. 500E-11 (2 coil), Grace F-9 & L, even the entry level Signet TK(x) & TK(x)a carts are in this "microphonic" category. Another, the Empire 4000D-111, hit the vinyl with remarkable results, even though not yet run-in. Reportedly, the well thought of 881S & XSV 3000 are also microphonic.
Six turntables, seven arms (three of which are interchangeable on two TT's), 25+ headshells and 50+ carts results in nearly 14,000 possibilities, not involving the miriad of compatible stylus exchanges. Giving it some thought, here's what seems to be going on.
An electric current will be induced in any closed circuit when the magnetic flux through a surface bounded by the conductor changes, whether the field itself changes in strength or the conductor is moved through it. Vibration modulates the magnetic flux linking the coil, thereby inducing an alternating current through the coil. Some high-output pickups employ very strong magnets, thus creating more flux and thereby more output. This can be detrimental to the final sound because the magnet's pull on the core can cause problems with intonation as well as damp the cantilever and reduce sustain. High-output cartridges have more turns of wire to increase the voltage generated by the cantilever's movement, this also increases the pickup's output resistance/impedance, which can affect high frequencies. Moving tip mass is another factor.
A cartridge doesn't care where it's signal originates. In the case where there is a mismatch of cartridge compliance/TA eff. mass or if the cartridge is not isolated by a buffer of some description, then tonearm, plinth, turntable, headshell or acoustic resonance is returned to the cartridge. The relevant amplification factor depends on the shape, material and mass of the article through which the resonance moves and it's commonly recognized that by adjusting its characteristic properties one may optimize the response of the system. The appearance of resonance is common for systems and isolation, damping and noise play an prominent role. This constitutes an important consideration in the characterization of these systems and can put to use for *controlling their basic properties*. Hmmm.
When considering resonance, four factors are taken into consideration. These are:
1. wavelength 2. plain wave propagation 3. reflection 4. phase matching.
Destructive resonance occurs when waves interfere with each other, A+B=0. In a situation in which constructive resonance, or constructive interference exists, A+B=AB, this is a condition in which enhanced resonance is observed. Resonance, depending on the degree the cartridge or tonearm is damped or performs as a vibrational sink (open or closed system) may to some degree be either in phase or not. From a listener's perspective, with corrective loading styli assemblies from the relatively well-damped and neutral AT & Shure carts can be exchanged with relative impunity. Stanton/Pickering carts seem to be much more resonant tuned. Phase anomalies are audible with such exchanges, do so with trepidation.
Martin Collums reviewed cartridges, tonearms and turntables in his 1977 book, "Hi-Fi Choice Turntables and Cartridges". Raul provided a link to a table listing those cartridges reviewed, unfortunately I've lost the link to the Vinyl Engine file but there were a number of carts with high marks in the usual technical specs downgraded from his "Recommended" list on the criteria of "listenability".
Tube amplification and straight-through MOSFET (zero NFB) also have audible resonant characteristics. In the perpetual debate between accurate and musical, maybe a little "listenability" is a positive attribute?
"(and that wee little resonance can't be such a big deal can it ?!)"
Peace, |
Dear Dover: +++++ " there is no way to support the most critical subject in the cartridge quality level performance: cartridge/headshell/headshell wires saying that the 30-40+ years old cartridge with integarted headshell are better that its stand alone versions with todays " technology " " ++++++
todays " technology " means: better cartridge/headshell wires, better wire connectors, better headshells and the posibility to choose the best match, etc, etc.
I think that maybe I don't make very precise my point: there is no generalization on that subject it is only on vintage samples against the stand alone vintage same model mounted with today " technology ".
About that additional joint to the tonearm in my case and as many other people we use direct wire/cable connection from the cartridge pin connectors to the Phonolinepreamp.
I posted:
+++++" Today we have several options on headshells, several options on mount screws, several options on headshell wires, several options on headshell wire connectors, several options to align the cartridge. Even some of us like to tame the cartridge " color " through the mount screws using different pressure on the screws/cartridge mounting to the headshell. " +++++
all this are advantages to the stand alone cartridge models due that help to attain the best that vintage cartridge can shows us.
++++++ " the only possibility I " see " that the integrated one could beats the stand alone " sister " is to change the integrated internal wires and after that find out the tonearm ideal match and even here the challenge could be strong because the stand alone one will be on similar whole set up conditions. " ++++
The theory behind that " rigidity " you bring on the subject maybe is more theory than a reality because if we can't hear it it is hard to know helps to detriment on sound quality. I made several experiments about with some of my tonearms: MS and Audiocraft and with my own tonearm self design and I can't say that rigidity makes a difference for the better.
Anyway, only an opinion/experiences.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Hi David and folk, Thanks for your posts David.
Re: have your cake and eat it too.
If you get a resonance at 250Hz or close, that implies a less than rigid headshell/armtube. "Good" arms are designed to dissipate energy. Vibrations travel down the armtube and are met with a body of weight - the counterweight or arm pillar. Hopefully, it's not sent back to the cart. That mass will convert the vibrations to heat or it travels down the pillar. [Touch a vibrating tuning fork to a block of granite.] Using a removable headshell you're much more likely to have vibrations remain in the headshell as they hit the headshell coupling. I have some arms with removable headshells, and I think this is true. IMO it's better to avoid additional resonance, retain greater arm rigidity, and allow the arm to dissipate mechanical energy.
There are different kinds of resonance, but any resonance that shows up in the audible band is a problem. At carts primary high freq resonance there is a 180ᵒ phase shift. This phase anomaly extends at least 2 octaves (usually) and into the audible band, often more. This effects imaging and coherence. Most carts have a naturally rising high end that is controlled by damping. Ironically, the damping is the cause of extended phase shift. I'm not sure how other damping effects phase, but any additional resonance can only be beneficial as complimentary coloration. Like using high mass/MOI arms and compensating with 100K load, it's the wrong approach IMO. Reports of carts at wild angles confirms that.
Regards, |
Dear Fleib: +++++ " that implies a less than rigid headshell/armtube " ++++
++++++ " Using a removable headshell you're much more likely to have vibrations remain in the headshell as they hit the headshell coupling. I have some arms with removable headshells, and I think this is true. IMO it's better to avoid additional resonance, retain greater arm rigidity, and allow the arm to dissipate mechanical energy. " +++++
the kind of resonances and its frequency level depnds mainly not only on how rigid is the coupling but the headshell build material and how resonate and how can dissipate it and not only through the tonearm.
This is something that we worked in deep through the whole design of our tonearm that now is finished. Our tonearm, even that is removable headshell ) does not shows what you states and that can happen with other tonearms that use different build material than our propietary one
Overall build material on tonearms are the main factors on that resonance issue, obviously along other design parameters but build materials makes a paramount and critical differences.
Always exist resonances/distortions on many kind and the success on any design IMHO is try to leave those resonances/distortions away of the frequency range our brain is more sensitive and where could cause more problems.
Tonearm as a whole audio item has a " pre-historic " status and there is a lot of land to improve its main functions. The tonearm as a whole IMHO is just a " kid " and needs to grow up faster in benefit of our hobby. IMHO there is no " last word " or do not writed yet that last word in tonearms so it is exciting to know that the best is forthcoming about.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Fleib, I respect your opinion regarding headshells. However, have you ever taken a good look at the construction of some of the modern very highly regarded tonearms that do not allow for interchangeable headshells? Many of them, especially the wood ones, use a separate piece of brass or other metal as a fixing point for mounting the cartridge. Those metal pieces do not allow for a good contact surface between cartridge and mount and so cannot possibly be very efficient at draining resonant energy from the cartridge. Many of those same products also then affix the mount piece to the wood arm wand by a single fastener, usually a screw. Thus the contact between the metal piece and the wood seems insufficient to effect an efficient transfer of energy, also. This causes me some consternation, why I have not yet bought in to the mystique. To wit, take a look at a Talea or a Schroeder. My point is that the need to drain energy from the cartridge body seems to have taken a back seat in many cases among designers of modern fixed-shell tonearms, many of which are widely revered. In contrast, I would point out the structural superiority of the Triplanar; Herb Papier used to expound on the necessity for a firm grip of cartridge to headshell and of headshell to arm wand, and he was true to his ideal in building the TP. Yet, as we know, the TP is no longer the darling of the high-end set, having been supplanted to a large degree by Talea, Schroeder, et al. I don't know whether this is an example of elitism among the high end set or of adherence to a theory of energy transfer that is maybe not so important in real life, on your part and mine. |
Dear Lewm: Only that people like more the resonances/distortions on the new " toys ", that's all.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Hi Lew, all those points could be valid depending on the individual design. I think wood would tend to dampen and not efficiently transmit. On the other hand a single connection between a headshell plate and arm, could be beneficial for energy dissipation. Energy could have one clear path to travel from plate to arm tube. I base much of this on the work of Pierre Lurne. There are several interviews on the web. Over the yrs his principals seem to work for me. BTW, he has a degree in physics.
The question arises of how much of this is practical, audible, or just theoretical. I would say, it depends. I think a flexing or resonance just behind the headshell only complicates things and would tend to compromise performance.
Regards, |
